Skip to content

GHSA-hpv4-5h6f-wqr3 CVE-2026-46705

russh server userauth state is not reset when authentication principal changes

Medium crates.io
Severity
5.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.22%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 12.33% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-287 Improper Authentication
Fix
0.61.0
Upgrade russh to this version or later

Description

Summary

The russh server authentication path keeps internal userauth state across SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_REQUEST messages without separating that state when the request principal changes.

RFC 4252 allows the user name and service name fields to change between authentication requests. The issue is not that such changes are invalid. The issue is that russh-owned authentication state, such as remaining methods, partial-success state, and in-progress method state, can remain associated with the connection and then influence a later request for a different (user, service).

This is an internal library state mismatch. Applications are responsible for any authentication state they keep in their own handlers, but russh must reset or separate state that russh itself owns.

Details

The relevant server-side auth logic is in:

  • russh/src/server/encrypted.rs
  • russh/src/auth.rs

RFC 4252 section 5 says the user name and service name fields are repeated in every SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_REQUEST and may change. It also says the server implementation must check those fields in every message and flush accumulated authentication state if they change; if it cannot flush that state, it must disconnect.

In vulnerable russh code, the username and service are decoded from each SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_REQUEST, while the AuthRequest state remains connection-scoped. That state includes:

  • methods, which is later encoded as the SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_FAILURE remaining-methods list.
  • partial_success, which is later encoded in SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_FAILURE.
  • current, which tracks in-progress method state such as public-key offer or keyboard-interactive challenge state.
  • rejection_count.

If one request narrows russh's internal methods set, a later request for a different user can observe that narrowed set unless the internal state is reset at the principal boundary.

PoC

The PoC demonstrates only russh-owned state. The handler does not store any cross-request state. Alice's request narrows russh's remaining methods to password; Bob's later plain reject should not reuse that internal state.

struct RemainingMethodsUserSwitchServer;

impl server::Handler for RemainingMethodsUserSwitchServer {
    type Error = russh::Error;

    async fn auth_none(&mut self, user: &str) -> Result<server::Auth, Self::Error> {
        if user == "alice" {
            Ok(server::Auth::Reject {
                proceed_with_methods: Some(MethodSet::from(&[MethodKind::Password][..])),
                partial_success: true,
            })
        } else {
            Ok(server::Auth::reject())
        }
    }
}

#[tokio::test]
async fn auth_does_not_carry_remaining_methods_across_username_change() {
    let alice = session.authenticate_none("alice").await.unwrap();

    assert!(matches!(
        alice,
        client::AuthResult::Failure {
            ref remaining_methods,
            ..
        } if *remaining_methods == MethodSet::from(&[MethodKind::Password][..])
    ));

    let bob = session.authenticate_none("bob").await.unwrap();

    if let client::AuthResult::Failure {
        remaining_methods, ..
    } = bob {
        assert!(
            remaining_methods.contains(&MethodKind::PublicKey),
            "server reused Alice's narrowed remaining methods for Bob: {remaining_methods:?}"
        );
    }
}

On upstream/main, this fails with:

server reused Alice's narrowed remaining methods for Bob: MethodSet([Password])

That failure is produced by russh's retained AuthRequest.methods; it does not depend on handler-owned MFA/session state.

Impact

Suggested provisional CVSS v3.1:

  • CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
  • Score: 5.3

Reasoning:

  • AV:N: reachable by a remote SSH client during authentication.
  • AC:L: the attack is a normal sequence of SSH user-auth packets.
  • PR:N: the attacker does not need an already-authenticated SSH session.
  • UI:N: no user interaction is required on the server side.
  • S:U: the impact is within the vulnerable SSH server implementation.
  • C:N: the narrow PoC does not disclose confidential data.
  • I:L: russh-owned authentication state for one principal can affect the authentication flow for a different principal.
  • A:N: the narrow PoC does not demonstrate an availability impact.

This report does not claim that username changes are inherently invalid, nor does it rely on application-owned authentication state being mishandled by the embedding server.

Fix / Patch Direction

The fix should update russh's internal userauth state handling so that accumulated russh-owned state is flushed or separated when (user, service) changes between SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_REQUEST messages.

The fix stores the last seen (user, service) on AuthRequest. When a new auth request arrives for a different principal, russh resets its internal auth state before dispatching the new request. This keeps username changes protocol-valid while preventing prior russh-owned auth state from carrying into the new principal.

Affected versions

crates.io

PackageVulnerableFixed in
russh
>= 0.34.0-beta.1, < 0.61.0
0.61.0

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

russh crates.io → 0.61.0

cargo
cargo update -p russh --precise 0.61.0

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 5.3

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-287: Improper Authentication

When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-vp5q-ff62-jwqv
russh: Agent server never calls `Agent::confirm`, so keys added with the confirm constraint (`ssh-add -c`) sign without confirmation
High Also affects russh
GHSA-fw5c-8223-6h42
russh: peer-declared zero maximum packet size permanently stalls channel writes (silent AsyncWrite hang)
Medium Also affects russh
GHSA-9wfm-jcj8-jfv9
russh's SSH agent server is susceptible to unbound allocations via repeated SSH_AGENT_CONSTRAIN_CONFIRM messages
Low Also affects russh
GHSA-4p9f-7p9m-5vfg
russh's SSH client is susceptible to unbounded allocations via EXT_INFO packets
Medium Also affects russh
GHSA-4wc5-f2rc-q74m
russh: Unbounded memory allocation in agent protocol server via crafted constraint records
Medium Also affects russh
GHSA-j7h2-66j4-ghjf
A russh SSH server accepts a publickey authentication whose signature uses a different algorithm than the one named in the request
Low Also affects russh
GHSA-g6xm-f9xp-qq35
Russh: Configured server auth-attempt cap is not enforced in the USERAUTH_REQUEST runtime path
Low Also affects russh
GHSA-w3jg-pjxf-73p4
Russh: Missing X25519 zero-point validation in hybrid ML-KEM key exchange
Medium Also affects russh
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor